Read on Twitter
Those advocating for laws promulgated by Zia-ul-Haq, praising them as a deterrent force against any rape case during the then next 10 years, here are a few facts you should acquaint yourself with:
Zia introduced the Hudood laws in an attempt to "Islamise" the law. What followed as a consequence was a more rigorous suffering for the already susceptible group, women.
The criterion of evidence was further tightened, requiring four male witnesses, which was practically impossible to prove in rape cases brought up by women.
The distinction between rape and adultery was blurred. Therefore, if a woman failed to prove rape case (according to new standards of proof i.e., 4 male witnesses), she was held guilty of committing adultery.
Those constantly supporting Zia's dictatorial legislation MUST KNOW that the reason why no rape case was reported, as we have been told, was not because the despotic legislation dissuaded people from committing violence against women, including rape;
it was because, being mindful of a conviction against adultery due to unpragmatic standards of proof, the victims were compelled to remain silent, while the perpetrators continued to benefit under the draconian system of law.
